Right. Really, what the court talked about was balancing on the one hand individual autonomy with the need to protect vulnerable persons.
You cited paragraph 95 of the Carter decision, but I would also note paragraph 105 of the Carter decision. The Supreme Court cited Madam Justice Smith in talking about the need for a properly designed and administered system of safeguards.
Then at paragraph 111 of the decision, the court goes on—and Professor Lemmens referred to it—to an affidavit that had been submitted by Professor Montero with respect to the Belgian experience, wherein the court in response said, we need not consider this affidavit for the purpose of admitting it as evidence before the court, because the parameters suggested in these reasons, such as euthanasia for minors or persons with psychiatric disorders or minor medical conditions, would not fall within the parameters of what we are contemplating.
Would you agree that those additional paragraphs also lend support to the idea that when we talk about rights, including those under section 7 of the charter, it's not a one-way street, but a balancing?